The present study investigates the feasibility of a humor training for a subclinical sample suffering from increased stress, depressiveness, or anxiety. Based on diagnostic interviews, 35 people were invited to participate in a 7-week humor training. Evaluation measures were filled in prior training, after training, and at a 1-month follow-up including humor related outcomes (coping humor and cheerfulness) and mental health-related outcomes (perceived stress, depressiveness, anxiety, and well-being). Outcomes were analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVAs. Within-group comparisons of intention-to-treat analysis showed main effects of time with large effect sizes on all outcomes. Post hoc tests showed medium to large effect sizes on all outcomes from pre to post and results remained stable until follow-up. Satisfaction with the training was high, attrition rate low (17.1%), and participants would highly recommend the training. Summarizing the results, the pilot study showed promising effects for people suffering from subclinical symptoms. All outcomes were positively influenced and showed stability over time. Humor trainings could be integrated more into mental health care as an innovative program to reduce stress whilst promoting also positive emotions. However, as this study was a single-arm pilot study, further research (including also randomized controlled trials) is still needed to evaluate the effects more profoundly.

BackgroundHumor trainings have positive effects on mental health and well-being. However, studies investigating the effects of humor trainings in clinical samples are still rare. This study investigated the efficacy and feasibility of a humor training for people suffering from depression, anxiety and adjustment disorders.MethodsBased on a diagnostic interview (SCID I and II), 37 people were randomized into a training (n = 19) or wait list control group (n = 18) and completed questionnaires at pre, post, and 1 month follow-up. After the training group had completed its training and evaluation measures, the wait list control group received the training and the outcomes of the group were additionally evaluated (post2 and follow-up2).ResultsAfter training, improvements in humor-related outcomes were observed for the training group, but these were relativized when compared to the wait list control group. Secondary outcomes remained unaffected by the training. In addition, the training group reported interpersonal difficulties. Within-group analyses of the wait list control group after completion of their training showed effects on almost all primary and secondary outcomes and feedback indicated a better atmosphere.ConclusionsIn summary, the different outcomes of the two groups are surprising and can show potential moderators of efficacy, such as interpersonal and group-specific climate variables. Since moderators of humor trainings in clinical samples have not been investigated at all, future studies should consider integrating them into their design.Trial registrationThe study was retrospectively registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00012443) on May 16, 2017.

Abstract. Since the 1920s, psychologists have sought to assess the sex- and gender-related attributes of men and women, including primarily aspects of personality and focusing on positive characteristics. In this paper, we introduce a new questionnaire for assessing gender-related attributes with a broader approach than provided by previous ones. Therefore, the questionnaire includes (a) not only personality traits but also cognitions and interests and (b) not only positive but also negative and neutral characteristics. Two independent datasets were acquired (Study 1: N = 1,466; Study 2: N = 471) for development and psychometric analyses. Factor analysis confirmed a hierarchical structure with two separate dimensions of masculinity and femininity overarching the multiple first-order domains of personality, cognition, and interests. Analyses of reliability and convergence with other gender identity and personality scales revealed sufficient values. The new instrument discriminated between the biological sexes and was related to the gender quotas in participants’ occupations and social environments, thus providing evidence for criterion-related validity. Therefore, we propose the Gender-Related Attributes Survey (GERAS) as a useful tool for objectively assessing gender-related attributes across multiple facets in gender and sex-difference research.

No abstract